Google and SHTML files

Do they consider them to be "static" or "dynamic"

[born2drv]

Hi, I have a lot of static .html pages that have become a pain to update headers/footers/navigation for. So I was going to make them all .shtml and use include to place them in for me.

My question is, does Google consider these pages to be static or dynamic?

If Google thinks it's dynamic I may have to rethink things because these pages link to other dynamic content and from what I read it is better to link to dynamic content with static pages to get them indexed properly. Thanks.

[EliteWeb]

static because the server *server-side* processes the data before its sent to the browsers/engines.

[richlowe]

ASP, PHP, SHTML and the like are all static, since everything is done on the server side. Google will only see the finished product.

Richard Lowe

[Marcia]

You can use server side includes and still have your .html pages. This is what I've got in .htaccess to do that

AddHandler server-parsed .html .htm .shtml

Try it out on a test page, if it works you won't need to deal with a change.

[born2drv]

Thanks for the replies. I will look into that .htaccess thing, thanks Marcia.

The reason I thought .shtml would be considered dynamic by Google's standards is from what GoogleGuy has said. That they are trying to determine which pages are static and which are not, based on the load time. I guess in that sense it doesn't matter if it is .shtml or .html.

I will look into the .htaccess thing, if I don't have permission to edit it (which I am guessing to the be the case), I will just use .shtml instead.

Thanks for the help.

[GoogleGuy]

born2drv, the typical definition of a "dynamic" url is "Does this url have a question mark?"

As you know, any page with any extension can actually be a dynamic page due to server-side includes and processing. And a good webmaster can dish up dynamic content using any file extension they want. So it doesn't really make much difference to Google if you make your files end in .html or .shtml.

The only thing I'd consider is whether that would have any impact on your users or their browsers. From your first post, I would say that you could do this and be completely fine.

Hope this helps,
GoogleGuy

[rcjordan]

>So it doesn't really make much difference to Google if you make your files end in .html or .shtml.

Whoaaa, GG. Let's get that down to precise language (I've been working with corporate lawyers all day [in my other life]. Yes, I know d*mn well it's Saturday). Would you care to remove the "much" qualifier, so I can have this thread bronzed and put on the mantle? After all, there's not much difference between first and, say, third.

[born2drv]

Well, I've made the switch, I just did it to the .shtml, I think it was the best time too, since the update is more or less stable and deep crawling is now commencing.

Thanks GoogleGuy, and keep up the good work ;)

[savvy1]

You can use server side includes and still have your .html pages. This is what I've got in .htaccess to do that

AddHandler server-parsed .html .htm .shtml

Try it out on a test page, if it works you won't need to deal with a change.

The only minor problem with this is now the server has to parse EVERY .html file as a server parsed html file, as opposed to just the ones named .shtml. If 90% of your pages are shtml.. no big deal.. but if say only 10% are shtml, and the rest are true static .html..it could be a slight performance hit. Though, I have a feeling its negligible anyway.

[jatar_k]

Very good point savvy1,

The key is in how it is done. If done properly the hit is definitely negligible, which is the point.

One place that I have seen issues is when people nest too many includes (included files within included files within etc...). You should have absolutely no issues with the setup and extension you are talking about though.

[Marcia]

It's an absolute lifesaver on small sites, used across the pages for navigation and copyright notice, particularly when adding content or product pages to the site.

Between ssi and css, it's a pleasure to get rid of all the unnecessary repetition and having to upload all over again.

My only reservation is that if a site's already been established with .html pages I'd prefer to stay with it rather than change it all to .shtml afterward.

[Visit Thailand]

I had a similar situation a while back, one of our sites has thousands of pages and it was a nightmare to keep the pages updated with navigation etc so we swicthed to .shtml

We could have gone with parsing all .htm and .html pages but we didn't as we only wanted main pages and new ones to have the .shtml rather than have the server parse every one of the thousands of pages which may have slowed the site down.

We used 301 redirects from each of the old .htm /.html pages to the new .shtml pages and we have touch wood so far not had any problems. Google as efficient as ever picked up on it and reindexed them all and we kept the ranking of where we were before.

It was a lot of work but is very beneficial as it gives you the opportunity to validate all your pages etc.

Now all sites pages we build are all .shtml whether we are using SSI or not.